P3D Re: list fragmentation

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998
>From: Bob Wier writes:
>...............
>
>Actually, I'd think "R3D"...
>
>The general concensus seems to be to maintain the list as a single entity
>(or at least not to split off any further lists). However, there also does
>clearly need to exist a forum separate from the main list for heavily
>technical
>computer issues as they deal with tru3d  - what I'm being inclined towards
>at the moment is the creation of a D3D but with a limited charter that
>disussions there will be oriented towards VERY specific computer related
>questions (such as partioning hds, what filters to use in Photoshop, etc),
>whereas *general* computer related 3d topics would remain on p3d.

*****  That's a different consensus than I noticed. Some have stated things
one way and others in the other way. Still others have taken the opportunity
to explore the satirical approach which doesn't really make a statement one
way or the other. Having a D3D list that ONLY discusses hard drives and
PhotoShop would be decidedly out of my interest range. However a D3D list
that discusses True stereo 3D in the digital realm would be very much of
interest. Those topics are OK on P3D as long as they are infrequent, never
in depth, and willing to put up with all kinds of clatter from camera
fanatics who can't tolerate digital discussions at all but can go on at
great length about camera retainer rings, adjuster knobs, film types, repair
routines, etc.

I am in no way saying such topics are not useful, I'm pointing out that they
are very boring unless one happens to own that particular camera and have
that particular problem with it. Most such technical subjects aren't even
related to stereo 3D other than indirectly. When even 10% of that level of
energy steers in a digital direction all kinds of shouts in complaint are
raised from those who haven't gone digital yet. 

Perhaps those of us with digital interests should actually start conversing
about our interests more heavily and see what happens then? Or maybe we
should lower our tolerance threshold for boring non-3D camera related
technical questions and start complaining like the camera folk do to our
discussions? How much nicer to notice the traffic problem before someone
dies in the crosswalk.

The fact is that currently, though tolerated, digital subjects even though
they relate to 3D are mostly unwelcome on P3D by a significant number of
non-digitally aware persons with a very low tolerance threshold. Out of
respect for their interests it makes sense to have a digital group where
camera only folk are welcome as long as they aren't complaining, and those
with digital interests can visit P3D to learn about cameras and lenses
without having their digital conversations feel intrusive and out of place.

I'd far rather discuss digital topics without complaints than to know that
it's *OK* despite the existence of loud complaints.

>
>It's not clear how this would be enforced though (outside of having a
>watchful d3d moderator who could direct stuff *back* to p3d if it generalizes -
>which is somewhat the reverse of what most moderators do).

****  If a discussion in one group gets a certain level of attention but
happens to wander into generalized 3D areas, why does some narrow definition
have to shoo the conversation to the *other* 3D list? Such tight rules would
kill the conversation instead of allowing it to continue. As long as it
stays on 3D topics and members of the group are maintaining an active
interest, why should it have to move? Now, if on D3D someone wanted to
discuss the details of repairing a Realist Camera, I can see the
advisability of changing which track the discussion takes place on. I don't
see a need for that if some computer 3D newbies need or want some level of
generalized 3D information. They might not be welcome on the P3D list with
their computer oriented follow up questions. 

If the rules are too tight it makes it like trying to have one conversation
on several separate telephone lines. (not connected as conference calls) Ask
one kind of question on P3D and a different question on D3D and worry about
whether or not one has figured out the *right* sort of definition... 

It seems there is plenty of interest in a D3D list, and that many of the
details being debated would take care of themselves for the most part and
only require a moderator in extreme cases, just like in all the current
lists. At the foundation each of these lists has stereoscopic 3D as the
*accepted topic*.

The only other solution is to forbid complaints about digital topics on P3D
and expect all the traffic to pass through that one list. That hardly seems
practical and it does involve the specific and possibly difficult change of
forbidding complaints. ;-)

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


------------------------------